Integrating public risk perception into formal natural hazard risk assessment

Natural Hazards and Earth System Science

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 471-483

  Plattner, Th ^a   Plapp, T ^b   Hebel, B ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KARLSRUHE   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; NATURAL HAZARD; PERCEPTION; RISK ASSESSMENT;

GERMAN FEDERAL REPUBLIC;

EID: 33747111308     PISSN: 15618633     EISSN: 16849981     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5194/nhess-6-471-2006     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Amman, W., Bischof, N., Bründl, M., Schneider, T., and Warner, K.: Teilprojekt B: Methoden-Evaluation. Schlussbericht, Tech, rep., PLANAT, 2004.
2. BABS: Katastrophen und Notlagen in der Schweiz (KATARISK). Eine Risikobeurteilung aus der Sicht des Bevölkerungsschutzes, Tech, rep., Bundesamt für Bevölkerungsschutz (BABS), http://www. bevoelkerungsschutz.admin.ch/internet/bs/de/home/themen/Verbundsystem/ gefaehrdungen/katarisk.html, access date: 25.1.2005, 2003.
3. Beizer, R.: Getting beyond the grin and bear in the practice of risk management, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 72, 137-148, 2001.
4. Bohnenblust, H.: Die Anwendung eines risikoorientierten Sicherheits-Modells zur Beurteilung der Neubaustreckentunnel der Deutschen Bundesbahn, in: Risikountersuchungen als Entscheidungsinstrument - Risk analysis as a decision tool, edited by: Yadigaroglu, Y. and Chakraborty, S., vol. 1, pp. 341-361, Verlag TÜV Rheinland, Köln, 1985.
5. Bohnenblust, H. and Schneider, T.: Risk appraisal - can it be improved by formal decision models?, in: Uncertainty in risk assessment, risk management and decision making, edited by: Covello, V. T., Lave, L. B., Moghissi, A., and Uppuluri, V., vol. 4 of Advances in risk analysis, pp. 71-87, Plenum Press, New York/London, 1984.
6. Bohnenblust, H. and Slovic, P.: Integrating technical analysis and public values in risk-based decision making, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 59, 151-159, 1998.
7. Brun, W.: Cognitive components in risk perception: natural vs. manmade risks, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5, 117-132, 1992.
8. BUWAL, ed.: Handbuch I zur Störfallverordnung StFV. Richtlinien für Betriebe mit Stoffen, Erzeugnissen und Sonderabfällen., Eidgenössische Drucksachen- und Materialzentrale (EDMZ), Bern, 1991.
9. DeChano, L. and Butler, D.: Analysis of public perception of debris flow hazard, Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 10, 261-269, 2001.
10. Eisenführ, F. and Weber, M.: Rationales Entscheiden, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 3 edn., 2003.
11. Farmer, F.: Siting criteria - a new approach, in: Containment and siting of nuclear power plants, edited by: IAEA, vol. 1, pp. 303-329, International atomic energy agency (IAEA), Wien, 1967.
12. Finlay, P. J. and Fell, R.: Landslides: risk perception and acceptance, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 34, 169-188, 1997.
13. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., and Combs, B.: How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits, Policiy Sciences, 9, 127-152, 1978.
14. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., and Lichtenstein, S.: "The public" vs. "the experts": perceived vs. actual disagreements about risk of nuclear power, in: The analysis of actual versus perceived risks, edited by: Covello, V. T., Flamm, W. G., Rodricks, J. V., and Tardiff, R. G., vol. 1 of Advances in risk analysis, pp. 235-249, Plenum Press, 1981.
15. Geiger, G.: Risikobereitschaft und Risikoaversion in der Theorie rationaler ökonomischer und technischer Entscheidungen, in: Gesellschaft - Ethik - Risiko, Ergebnisse des Polyprojekt-Workshop vom 23-25 November 1992, edited by: Ruh, H. and Seiler, H., vol. 1, pp. 17-47, Birkhäuser, Basel, Boston, Berlin, 1993.
16. Griesmeyer, J. M.: Risk aversion of the public or risk proneness of experts?, Transactions of the american nuclear society, 41, 446-447, 1982.
17. Heinimann, H. R.: Risk Management - a framework to improve effectiveness and efficiency of resource management decisions, in: 23rd session of the European Forestry Commission's working warty on the management of mountain watersheds, edited by: Greminger, P., vol. 1, pp. 16-19, Bundesamt für Wald, Umwelt und Landschaft (BUWAL), Davos, 2002.
18. Jasanoff, S.: The political science of risk perception, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 59, 91-99, 1998.
19. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A.: Prospect Theory: an analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica, 47, 263-291, 1979.
20. Karger, C. and Wiedemann, P.: Kognitive und affektive Komponenten der Bewertung von Umweltrisiken, Zeitschrift für experimentelle Psychologie, 45, 334-344, 1998.
21. Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J. X., and Ratick, S.: The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework, Risk Analysis, 8, 177-187, 1988.
22. Krimsky, S.: The role of theory in risk Studies, in: Social theories of risk, edited by Krimsky, S. and Golding, D., pp. 3-22, Praeger, Westport/London, 1992.
23. Lima, M.: Dam failure versus flood risk perception, in: Dams and safety management at downstream valleys, edited by: Betamio de Almeida, T. and Viseu, A., pp. 103-110, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1997.
24. Marris, C., Langford, I., Saunderson, T., and O'Riordan, T.: Exploring the "psychometric paradigm": comparisons between aggregate and individual analyses, Risk Analysis, 17, 303-312, 1997.
25. Merz, H. A., Schneider, T., and Bohnenblust, H.: Bewertung von technischen Risiken, Beiträge zur Strukturierung und zum Stand der Kenntnisse. Modelle zur Bewertung von Todesfallrisiken., vol. 1, vdf Verlag der Fachvereine, Zürich, 1995.
26. MünchenerRück: Naturkatastrophen in Deutschland. Schadenerfahrungen und Schadenpotentiale, Tech. rep., Munich Re, München, 1999.
27. NDK: Begriffe, NDK "Risiko und Sicherheit", 2001.
28. Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O.: Theory of games and economic behavior, Princeton University Press, 2004.
29. Pidgeon, N.: Risk assessment, risk values and the social science programme: why we do need risk perception research, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 59, 5-15, 1998.
30. Plapp, T.: Risk perception survey natural hazards summer 2001, unpublished data, Postgraduate Programme Natural Disasters and Insitute for Insurance, Universität Karlsruhe, Germany, 2001.
31. Plapp, T.: Wahrnehmung von Risiken aus Naturkatastrophen. Eine empirische Untersuchung in sechs gefährdeten Gebieten Süd- und Westdeutschlands, vol. 2 of Karlsruher Reihe II: Risikoforschung und Versicherungsmanagement, Verlag für Versicherungswirtschaft, 2004.
32. Plapp, T. and Werner, U.: Understanding risk perception from natural hazards: examples from Germany, in: CENAT-Workshop RISK 21, Coping with risks due to natural hazards in the 21st century, edited by: CENAT, Balkema, Rotterdam, in press, 2006.
33. Renn, O.: The role of risk perception for risk management, Engineering and System Safety, 59, 49-62, 1998.
34. Rohrmann, B.: Risk perception research. Review and Documentation. Revised Edition, Research Center Juelich, Program group Man, Environment, Technology, Risk Communication Studies 69, Juelich, 1999.
35. Rowe, G. and Wright, G.: Differences in expert and lay judgements of risk: myth or reality?, Risk Analysis, 21, 341-356, 2001.
36. Saaty, T. L.: Decision making for leaders. The analytic hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world, RWS Publications, 3 edn., 2001.
37. Sandman, P. M.: Risk communication: facing public outrage, 1987.
38. Sandman, P. M.: Hazard versus Outrage in the public perception of risk, in: Effective risk communication: the role and responsibility of government and nongovernment organizations, edited by Covello, V. T., McCallum, D. B., and Pavlova, M. T., vol. 4 of Contemporary issuss in risk analysis, pp. 45-49, Plenum Press, New York, 1989.
39. Sandman, P. M.: Managing outrage: a primeur, Engineering News-Record, pp. A19-A23, http://www.psandman.com/articles/amsaside.htm; access date: April 31, 2006, 1999a.
40. Sandman, P. M.: Risk = Hazard + Outrage. Coping with controversy about utility risks, Engineering News-Record, pp. A19-A23, http://www.psand.man.com/ articles/amsa.htm; access date: April 31, 2006, 1999b.
41. Siegrist, M., Gutscher, H., Orlow, P., and Yoker, m.: Hochwassergefahren in der Schweiz: Risikobewusstsein in der Bevölkerung und die Implikationen für eine erfolgreiche Risikokommunikation, Schlussbericht, Tech, rep., Universität Zürich, Sozial-forschungsstelle, 2004.
42. Simon, H. A.: A behavioral model of rational choice, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111, 99-118, 1955.
43. Simon, H. A.: The science of the artificial, MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass.), 2 edn., 1966.
44. Sjöberg, L.: Factors in risk perception, Risk Analysis, 20, 1-11, 2000a.
45. Sjöberg, L.: The methodology of risk perception research, Quality and Quantity, 34, 407-418, 2000b.
46. Skjong, R. and Wentworth, B. H.: Expert judgement and risk perception, in: Offshore and polar engineering conference, ISOPE, vol. IV, pp. 537-544, Stavanger, 2001.
47. Slovic, P.: Perception of risk, Science, New series, 236, 280-285, 1987.
48. Slovic, P.: Perceptions of risk: reflections on the psychometric paradigm, in: Social theories of risk, edited by: Krimsky, S. and Golding, D., pp. 117-152, Praeger, Westport/ London, 1992.
49. Slovic, P.: The perception of risk, Bertram/Ingram, 2000.
50. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S.: Perceived risk: psychological factors and social implications, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 376, 17-34, 1981.
51. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S.: Risk Aversion, social values, and nuclear safety goals, Transactions of the american nuclear society, 41, 448-449, 1982.
52. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S.: The psychometric study of risk perception, in: Risk evaluation and management, edited by Covello, V. T., Menkes, J., and Mumpower, J., vol. 1 of Contemporary issues in risk analysis, pp. 3-24, Plenum Press, New York, 1986.
53. Troxler, C., Guenter, R., and Bohnenblust, H.: Schutz vor Naturgefahren, Schweizer Ingenieur und Architekt, 39, 1035-1040, 1989.
54. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D.: Advances in Prospect Theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, pp. 297-323, 1992.
55. Wilkinson, I.: Social theories of risk perception: at once indispensable and insufficient, Current Sociology, 49, 1-22, 2001.